Mere regulatory control does not make it a State: Gujarat High Court : Institute for Plasma Research not ‘State’ under Article 12, dismisses employee’s appeal
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gujarat Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak held that the Institute for Plasma Research is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Court dismissed the appeal challenging the maintainability of a writ petition against the Institute, upholding the decision of the Single Judge. It further directed that no writ petition is maintainable against the Institute on this ground alone and declined to interfere with the earlier dismissal.
The appellant approached the High Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, contesting the dismissal of his writ petition by the learned Single Judge. The writ petition challenged an order dated 29.09.2015, which terminated the appellant from his post as Engineer (S.C), and a subsequent appellate order dated 21.12.2015 by the Director of the Institute.
The appellant’s contention before the Division Bench centered on the status of the Institute for Plasma Research (I.P.R.) as a "State" under Article 12. Through his counsel, it was argued that I.P.R., though registered under the Societies Registration Act, operates under the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), Government of India, with its property, finances, and administration controlled by the Central Government.
The Bye-laws of the Institute were relied upon to demonstrate pervasive governmental control. According to the appellant, the buildings, land, machinery, and all resources of the Institute belong to the DAE. The Governing Council, as per Chapter 2, Clause 6 of the Bye-laws, is chaired by the Secretary of the DAE and includes representatives of the State and Central governments and nominated scientists.
It was further submitted that the powers of the Governing Council, including those pertaining to appointments, pay-scales, service conditions, and reservation policies, require prior approval of the Central Government. Bye-law 32 invoked the General Financial Rules of the Government of India, and the Institute’s disciplinary and conduct rules are aligned with the Central Civil Services Rules. Citing Supreme Court precedents in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others, the appellant maintained that the functional, financial, and administrative control by the Central Government qualifies the Institute as a “State.”
Countering this, the respondent Institute through its counsel maintained that it is a grant-in-aid, autonomous research institution dedicated to fundamental and applied plasma studies, with limited government interference in its daily affairs. It argued that mere funding or nominal oversight does not render it a “State.” Supporting judgments from both the Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court were cited, including Chander Mohan Khanna v. NCERT, Tekraj Vasandi v. Union of India, and Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma.
The respondent contended that regulatory control or financial assistance is insufficient to confer “State” status under Article 12. The distinction between regulatory supervision and pervasive control was noted, noting that the Union Government does not interfere in the routine operations or internal disciplinary processes of the Institute.
The Court observed, “True it is that the Institute is a research and development organization under the authority of Department of Atomic Energy, but that itself would not make the institute a State within the meaning of Article 12.”
The judgment relied extensively on Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, noting the specific parameters established by the Supreme Court for determining whether a body is a “State.” The Division Bench recorded, “The question in each case would be – whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive.”
Addressing the composition of the Governing Council, the Court recorded, “Merely because the composition is of the Government of India is mainly dominated by officers of the Department of Atomic Energy, that itself will not make it a body over which it cannot be said to be the State’s pervasive functional control.”
In regard to financial autonomy, it stated, “Unlike what was brought before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CSIR where 70% of the funding was by the State agency, nothing is on record before us as to what extent the Central Government funds the institute.”
On disciplinary and administrative control, the Court noted, “Merely because the rules are in line with the Central Rules or Central Civil Services Rules, that itself is not an indication of the State’s control.”
Further, the Court found, “The institute is largely involved in theoretical and experimental studies in plasma science including basic plasma physics which is a scientific and research activity which cannot be termed to be fundamental to the governance of the country.”
The Court held, “We are, therefore of the opinion that the learned Single Judge committed no error in dismissing the petition.”
It further directed, “Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. In view of disposal of the main appeal, the civil application will not survive and stands disposed of, accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shalin Mehta, Senior Counsel with Ms. Aditi S. Raol, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. D.G. Shukla, Advocate with Ms. Meshwa Bhatt, Advocate, Ms. Vyoma K. Jhaveri, Advocate.
Case Title: Himanshu Dineshchandra Parekh v. Institute for Plasma Research & Ors.
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 1366 of 2024
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Biren Vaishnav, Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak
